Shorn of the sophistries that provide it with a moral disguise, pared down to its essentials, political government is the systematic use of exactly the same kind of criminal violence employed by Loughner, only on a much grander scale. This was illustrated the day before Loughner's murderous rampage, when agents of the government ruling us used a remote-controlled drone operated from the safety of an office building in Nevada to murder six people in Pakistan's North Waziristan region.

Americans were not admonished to observe a moment of chastened silence in memory of the victims of that exercise in criminal violence. This is, in part, because observances of that kind would quickly become tedious: Since 2008, Pakistan -- a country with which the government ruling us is not formally at war -- has endured at least 250 drone attacks, in which roughly 1,400 people have been killed.

Hundreds of civilians have likewise been massacred in the ongoing "surge" in Afghanistan, many of them in nighttime raids by "Special Operations Forces" -- that is, death squads -- whose behavior is not easily distinguishable from that of Jared Loughner. At least a hundred thousand civilians have been annihilated in the continuing war in Iraq, which was inaugurated for reasons just as delusional as anything that percolated in Loughner's distressed mind.

For those who worship at the altar of the omnipotent State, mass murder of this kind is an exercise in sanctified violence. In a 2009interview with Foreign Policy magazine, Bill Clinton -- who has repeatedly denounced "anti-government" speech as a form of criminal sedition -- defined terrorism as “killing and robbery and coercion by people who do not have state authority." (Emphasis added.) What this means, of course, is that "killing and robbery and coercion" by duly authorized agents of the State isn't terrorism, it's policy.

You see, bombs and drones may demolish homes, but only "anti-government" words can harm us. This is why one of the political elite's most urgent priorities is the control and criminalization of anti-government speech.

Thus Rep. Robert Brady, a Pennsylvania Democrat, announced that he would propose legislation criminalizing verbal or symbolic expression that could be perceived as conveying a threat against a federal official, or an incitement to violence against such exalted personages.

"The president is a federal official," observed Brady. "You can't do it to him; you should not be able to do it to a congressman, senator, or federal judge.... The rhetoric is just ramped up so negatively, so high, that we have got to shut this down."

That last statement, of course, is an oblique but unmistakable threat: How else would federal officials "shut this down" without the involvement of armed functionaries authorized to kill those who would resist?

If Boehner's intent was to denounce criminal violence against the innocent, why did Boehner italicize the sanctified status of Judge Roll and Congresswoman Giffords?

The same priorities were on display in the charges filed against Loughner in his arraignment: One count of attempting to assassinate a member of Congress, two counts of unlawfully killing a federal employee, and two counts of attempting to kill a federal employee. The crime committed in Tucson is covered by Arizona's state laws, of course, and the victims -- including all four who were murdered, not merely the federal judge and congressional aide -- were all residents of the state.

Wallis could be considered the Obama administration's court prophet. Economist and investigative journalist Bill Anderson points out that neither Wallis nor his publication, Sojourners ever so much as mentioned -- let alone condemned -- the 1993 federal massacre at Mt. Carmel, in which scores of innocent people (including seventeen young children) were either immolated or slaughtered by automatic gunfire when they tried to escape their burning sanctuary.

"The people who were shot and immolated at the Branch Davidian location were not real people to Wallis, who sees literally everything in political symbolism," observes Anderson. "So, the rule of thumb is that if he cannot find a way to put an incident into his worship of the State, it simply doesn’t happen."

Bellows insisted that Abraham the Destroyer, as "head of the nation," was literally "a sacred person.... You cannot rudely assail the personal character or judgment of a Chief Magistrate, without weakening public respect for the office he holds.... To rally round the President -- without question or dispute -- is the first and most sacred duty of loyal citizens...."

Rev. Bellows extolled the U.S. President as a literally messianic figure; his text was the messianic prophecy of Isaiah 9:6, which contains the phrase "and the government shall be upon his shoulder." Those who condemned Lincoln's crimes against the Constitution, he insisted, were made of the same wretched stuff from which were formed "the enemies of our Saviour, who were always flinging in his blessed face the authority of the Mosaic law."

Bellows granted that Lincoln violated the Constitution in countless ways, but maintained that just as Jesus was the incarnate Lawgiver, Lincoln should be regarded as the living Constitution. Were the actual written document to prove an insuperable impediment to Lincoln's divine mission, "the sooner it were abandoned, the better."

But Rev. Bellows wasn't content to hymn the praises of the Divine Lincoln and heap anathemas on the heads of those who failed to recognize his transcendent magnificence. Indeed, his purpose was to plead "the sacred cause of Government itself." He shuddered with pious disapproval at the spectacle of "Government despised, sneered at and distrusted by its own children."

Those in the employ of the Federal Government, Bellows insisted, are men "whose characters and reputation ought at this time to be under the shield of every patriotic citizen's allegiance and gratitude." Yes, at one point they were mere Mundanes, commonplace human beings burdened with the same weaknesses that afflict all of us. Now, however, "the lightning of God has touched them, and rendered them sacred," Bellows pontificated. They are entitled not only to dispose of the lives and property of the lesser beings they rule, but to their praise and worship as well.

"Thus, brethren, do I commend to you the cause of unconditional loyalty," Bellows summarized, issuing an idolatrous grand commission to his congregation to become "missionaries" of the divine State "wherever you go, and with whomsoever you are conversant. Let our women and children become the propagandists of unconditional loyalty. The country needs not only the fealty of her sons, but of her daughters who sing the songs of patriotic devotion at your hearth-stones.... Frown on every syllable of distrust, of wavering, of disrespect, that pollutes the air you breathe. Require of all your friends to be first the friends of the nation! Have nobody's love that does not love the country more! Make a religion of patriotism."

Bellows' oration was one of many he made in the service of what he called the "holy war" to vindicate the power of the central government over those who had withdrawn their consent to be ruled by it. In coming decades, the themes and tropes he expressed would be embroidered and delivered by other acolytes of the Total State -- in Russian, German, Italian, Korean, and other languages. And the Bellows Estate should collect a royalty payment every time critics of government are accused of fomenting "violence" by speaking irreverently of the Holy State.

Occasions like the Safeway Massacre should prompt condemnation of all criminal violence against the innocent. Instead, they prompt public liturgies that celebrate the Divine State and its monopoly on the "legitimate" use of lethal violence -- and offer the President an opportunity to carry out his ceremonial function as Pontifex Maximus of the civil religion. Some people describe this kind of thing as an "Oklahoma City moment," in which an episode of mass bloodshed inspires an altar call for Americans who have lost their faith in the divine State: The prodigals are given an opportunity to "Come to Molech," as it were.

Shortly after winning re-election in November 1996, Bill Clinton confided to reporters on Air Force One that his political recovery began with the Oklahoma City bombing: “It broke a spell in the country as people began searching for our common ground again.” That "common ground," as Rev. Bellows put it, is found in unqualified submission to the central government.

Just weeks ago, interestingly enough, former Hillary Clinton campaign strategist Mark Penn described Clinton's "OKC moment" during a panel discussion on MSNBC’s Hardball program. Barack Obama "right now seems removed" from the public, Penn pointed out. "It wasn’t until that speech [after the bombing] that [Clinton] really clicked with the American public.” According to Penn, Obama needed “a similar kind” of opportunity for greatness.

Obama now has that opportunity.

By way of a postscript....

Rep. Peter King, Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee and former bagman for the IRA, plans to introduce legislation that would make it a federal crime for Mundanes to carry firearms within 1000 feet of a federal official. This proscription wouldn't apply to those employed to protect those sanctified personages, of course.

43 comments:

William, this article was timely and on the money as they say. I had the exact same thoughts as you in regard to how the murder of government employees is portrayed as far more shocking and breath taking and worthy of note than when the murdering is performed by government employees like Cops or military on innocents. Well done.

Your post is right on the mark. The outpouring of verbal garbage by our "representatives" is, as usual, sickening. Cliche is piled on cliche, platitude joins platitude, sanctimonious inanities topping them all. I feel nothing but disgust at the "reactions" to this latest horror, considering the truth of your post today: We're killing people all over the world and where are the cries of sorrow and outrage for them?

Bravo! This is one of your most brilliant essays to date. Truly original thinking, and comment, on this massacre.

I had never heard of Rev. Bellows, but his commentary is such an apt apologia for the attitudes of our ruling Nomenklatura that it could have been written yesterday, or at any time since Baby Bush was (s)elected to the Presidency. The same sentiments have been expressed again and again in the last 10 years by those in power.

As you said, there is no difference at bottom between George Bush 1 and 2, Barack Obama, Kim Jong Il, Mao Tse Tung, Sani Abacha, Joseph Stalin, Hitler, Saddam or Pol Pot. Or any of their many millions of hired toadies and thugs. Just call them all "007" - barbarians with a license to kill.

As for the specific case of the Af-Pak Taliban, following Clinton's missile strikes on the Sudan and Afghanistan, (in revenge for the Embassy bombings and the USS Cole bombing - or so we were told,) and before 9-11, the Afghan Taliban Government, falling for the official US screenplay, offered to hand over Osama bin Laden to the USA, but the ofer was declined. Or rather, ignored. Why? Nobody has ever suggested a reason, but here is why: Because the 9-11 operation had to proceed, so that we could have the police state we have today.

Like I said before: NOTHING IS AS IT SEEMS. Believe nothing you hear or are told about what is going on or the reasons why it is going on.

There is only ONE yardstick by which to measure and understand large current events: That is to ask this question - "How does this increase the power, and ability to plunder the people, of those in authority?"

The 007's on Capitol Hill should read their history books. The French Revolution was NOT a spontaneous uprising of the downtrodden peasants. It was instigated, fomented and organized by the business classes and aristocracy (including the King's own brother, who coveted the throne,) who were excluded from court power. Once it got started, it became uncontrollable and swept away those who started it along with their intended targets, Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette.

This Phoenix massacre was NOT part of "The Plan". It has unnerved the 007's in Washington, since they now begin to understand that the beaten dog sometimes bites back, and that mass revolutions of the downtrodden peasants may be instigated, but are not controllable.

This Phoenix [sic] massacre was NOT part of "The Plan". It has unnerved the 007's in Washington, since they now begin to understand that the beaten dog sometimes bites back, and that mass revolutions of the downtrodden peasants may be instigated, but are not controllable.

Lemuel:

Don't be so quick to dismiss this incident as an aberration. After hearing the initial emerging details about the shooting on the local MSM news on Saturday morning (my daughter and grandson happened to be heading out to catch a movie at a theater not far from the scene of the shooting), my first thoughs included the following:

1. Where were "Tucson's Swinest" (OK, I know, the Keystone Kops look like commandos by comparison) when all of this took place? How was it that "mere mundanes," as usual, were the only ones on scene to "contain" the accused shooter?

2. How was it that Jared Lee Loughner (and whoever else served as his accomplice(s)) managed to even get close enough to shoot Congresscreature Giffords (don't EVEN get me started...) at point-blank range? Aren't the sanctified personages of State power ALWAYS protected in public from close contact with us Great Unwashed Masses, even as they pretend to rub elbows with us and drag out their best acting skills by pretending to want to hear our thoughts and opinions?

3. Most importantly, given that Giffords was planning to announce her proposed federal legislation to mandate strict gun control measures within states like Arizona that border Mexico, a move calculated to enrage massive numbers of Arizonans, WHY WOULD THERE NOT HAVE BEEN EXTRA SECURITY PRECAUTIONS IN PLACE?

None of it adds up. For purposes of brevity and blood pressure stability, I won't even go into Loughner's troubled (and heavily MEDICATED) background, nor the question of why Loughner's YouTube page was linked from Giffords' own YouTube page, both of these things being candidates for banishment to the Establishment memory hole.

Bottom line: The whole incident smells to high heaven and is screaming for independent analysis, which, of course, will not be forthcoming from the "usual suspects."

I wonder if we're being told the whole truth about the incident. Statists see it as insane, but with a government that has been caught so many times antagonizing, allowing to happen, or actually carrying out false flag attacks (in the case of OK city), we must inquire. I believe the current received knowledge, but it is a convenient media circus right at a time when anti-government sentiment volume was picking up a lot of steam. Now criticism of government can be ignored in the media. Instead, we're all supposed to reflect on how we mundanes are bad, and how we need our 1st and 2nd amendments curtailed. Naughty Americans! Also, someone with no firearm experience and one 30 round magazine of 9mm killed 4 and wounded 16? Damn good shooting for a novice in a high stress situation!

Liberranter is correct. This was not an aberration at all. It smacks of yet another mind-control op by the shades of the shadow so-called government. The only thing that most probably was an unexpected screw-up in the operation is that the assassin's assassin failed in his/her job to take out the main shooter immediately after he hosed down the joint and failed to shoot himself. Alas, a civilian got in the way of the endgame.

I know you've all been paying attention to the patterns, so you know that the shooter was supposed to die. I believe that was the role of the mysterious "accomplice" who "got away." Usually it's a cop who makes sure the shooter dies, but if the scenario was meant to be copless, or even if it wasn't, a secondary failsafe killer of the killer is always assigned, just in case the shooter's programming gets scrambled and he forgets to blow his own brains out soon enough.

Remember the New Life Church shooting in Colorado Springs a couple years ago? I don't know how much detail the outlying MSM gave, but in the Springs, we got quite a bit of original reporting and follow-up re-works of the original stories. To one who's been, unfortunately, on the inside of the Illuminati mind-control "family" (the originators of the CIA and all the state intelligence organs across the globe), I can tell you that the church shooting was absolutely, beyond the shadow of any doubt a planned and carefully controlled op. The shooter's shooter was a woman on a police force from the Denver metro area but who just happened to be a recently acquired member of the church and who was playing the role of church security guard on that day.

The targeted family was also from the Denver area and had recently joined the church for some unkown reason. Aren't there at least 6 dozen no-message mega churches in the Denver area? A family and a cop would spend an extra 2 to 3 hours out of their Sundays to travel to Colorado's fly-over country to be told that Jesus Christ is Lord except when the government is? I didn't buy it, either.

Anyway, the first reports said the off-duty cop shot the shooter. She was hailed as a hero for days in the paper. She made statements. She made a police report. She never said it happened any other way. Then, curiously, the next week, the paper is telling us that the shooter actually shot himself dead. The cop had mis-reported the events. He was dead when she found him, and she had not chased him at all. Of course, no quotes from the cop in this story. Who knows she may not even be alive today, herself.

So, the pattern normally is that the shooter self-assassinates, but if he fails to do so, the back-up does it. In the Arizona case, there's at leat one mind-controlled slave who's getting his/her programming torturously re-habilitated at night.

Liberranter: Are those pages available in the Wayback Machine @ archive.org?

Lemuel: You (and many, many others who advocate freedom) sometimes tend to write as if Leviathan's vicious battery of Liberty was some recent development, in contrast to some "Good Old Days" era when we were truly free. That may not be your intent, but that notion is as common as it is false, and I regard it as inimicable to ever achieving freedom, or even progressing toward it. The sad fact of the matter is, regarding government and freedom-loving individuals, it was always thus. Roosevelt (both), Wilson, Polk, Lincoln, John Adams (unfortunately a cousin) were all duplicitous totalitarian tools, no matter what philosophy they may have publicly espoused. The problem, the aggressor, is not one particular variety of government, but all: our true enemy is the very institution and concept of the state itself.

Will: You write what needs to be said; with great and increasing frequency, you write it far more persuasively and eloquently than anyone else could. Thank you.

As a old retired military man(spec/ops)I can tell there have been loose ends through out US history just in recent history,I think every w/IQ biger then thier waist size knows JFK story is BS,RFK had powder burns on back of hishead(1-to-3 ins)Sirhan never got that close,by the way he has NO memory of anything that nite(mind control?)Vince Foster & Hillery affair? I could go on but I don't want to flog a horse here,there is some ?'s about this case,getting beyond the Baa'ing of the herd whoun-ashamely carry on like a retardon the short bus while NO thought to the mass murder of 1000's go onevery year every yr.in thier nameI have to tell people(some places)while I travel I'am from Canada.?1 Drs say now the bullet went in the front of congw's head I've never had trouble telling enter/exit myself.(of course I've never been to med/school)?2 Its been reported that shooter workedon her run f/congress(2x)maybe withher subscription to his page someone should look closer.As Zacksaid "great firearm cotrol"

Liberranter,Convincing argument. You may well be right. I should listen to my own admonitions, that "Nothing is As it Seems." This massacre certainly gives them the justification they hoped for, to further curtail our freedoms of speech, and to spy on anyone who expresses disagreement with their policies or actions.- LG

Anonymous @ 4:56 PM,

I know. You are quite correct. Our present political situation is nothing new. We have seen all this before, many times. Here is a link to an excellent analysis, which I recommend: "How and Why the State Destroys Society" -

http://www.lewrockwell.com/chodorov/chodorov21.1.html

Excerpt:===================================Under primitive conditions, [man] relies on his own powers of resistance to robbery, his personal strength plus such weapons as he has at his disposal. That is his Government. Since this protective occupation interferes with his primary business of producing satisfactions, and is frequently ineffective, he is quite willing to turn it over to a specialist when the size and opulence of Society call for such a service. Government provides the specialized social service of safeguarding the marketplace.

The distinctive feature of this service is that it enjoys a monopoly of coercion. That is the necessary condition for the conduct of the business; any division of authority [to commit violence] would defeat the purpose for which Government is set up.

Yet, the fact remains that Government is a human organization, consisting of men who are exactly like the men they serve. That is, they too seek to satisfy their desires with the minimum of exertion, and they too are insatiable in their appetites. In addition to the run-of-the-mill desires that possess all men, Government personnel acquire one peculiar to their occupation: the adulation showered on them because they alone exercise coercion. They are people apart.===================================

In other words, the process of corruption, the process of diverting the monopoly of violent power to loot society instead of to prevent looting, seems to be inevitable. And repetitive. Once one corrupt coercive authority is removed, by revolution or otherwise, whatever takes its place, in time, becomes exactly the same.

George the Third would have been thrilled with all the mechanisms of violent power and surveillance our present overlords have at their disposal. They far exceed his wildest imaginations.

This congresswoman has had threats and offices vandalized but no security detail just aides. The EMS personnel took 30 minutes to get there. We hear she was shot from the back then from the front of the head. The fruitcake loon shooter has been making threats against people in that area since 2007 over the phone, online and verbally. Sheriff Fife Dupenik is trying to cover his hind quarters. There was a page in Russia saying the federal judge was the target as he was about to rule against the bankers similar to what happened in Massachusetts last week. Another webpage says that Loughner was a student in a Bill Ayers curriculum school. The curse of interesting times continues.

Baltimore cops fire 41 times into unruly-but unarmed-crowd outside nightclub. One plainclothes officer killed by "friendly fire". Also one civilian killed. http://www.wbaltv.com/news/26453680/detail.htmlBALTIMORE -- The 11 News I-Team has learned that a Baltimore police officer who was shot and killed by friendly fire outside a nightclub over the weekend was hit by as many as 20 bullets.On Monday, police Commissioner Fred Bealefeld confirmed that police officers fired 41 shots during the melee.(...)Investigators said they believe the 33-year-old Torbit, who was on duty in plain clothes, got into a fight outside Select Lounge in downtown Baltimore early Sunday morning. They said it appears he fired his service weapon to fend off the fight, and uniformed officers opened fire on him, apparently not realizing he was an officer.

Sean Gamble, a 22-year-old patron of the club, was also killed. Police said he may have been shot by Torbit during the fight.Four others were wounded in the incident.

Only police guns were fired during the shootout, Bealefeld said.(...)Everyone involved was black. That may be the reason why this incident is attracting little notice outside Baltimore.

Needless to say, the link has been removed since it was first brought to our attention on 1/10 (hat tip to David Franke, via the LRC Blog). I wasn't able to locate the original page via WM on archive.org, although I can't believe that it wasn't archived by somebody. If anyone else comes across it, a link would be appreciated.

I'm sure that everyone by now has heard that Reprehensible Peter King, subject of Will's previous expose, has called for the disarming of us Mere Mundanes who happen to find ourselves within 1000 feet of a sacred soul under the "employ" of the State. If passed into law, I consider this in a very key sense to be WONDERFUL news. Why, you might ask? Because, very simply, violent criminals or desperate and disturbed individuals with nothing left lose and who might have Sinn Fein Pete in their crosshairs (yes, I said it; interpret it any way you want to) will give not a microsecond's thought to such a silly law. Furthermore, any law-abiding, gun-owning citizen who might be inclined to attend a King meeting or rally (I can't imagine such a person, but, hey, anything is possible) will be disarmed, thereby preventing them from taking prompt action against the aforementioned criminal or psychopath who did what Jared Loughner is accused of doing last Saturday, thereby depriving Sinn Fein Pete of lifesaving protection. OTOH, Sinn Fein Pete is probably not so naive as to go without a cohort of armed thugs when appearing in public, just like his IRA "heroes" over in Ulster. (If taxpayer-funded goons aren't available, he can probably rely on a band of "volunteers" from among his fellow Sinn Fein fifth column in the Five Boroughs area.)

If you think about it, the OK bombing was so large that it wasn't "personal". This, however, was something made personal by the death of the child and a CRIME by the shooting of the Judge and Representative. The fun is just starting.

Speaking of the child victim: Did anyone else see the Nightly News (I think that was the name of the program) special report they did Sunday night?

They interviewed a couple alleged to be her parents, I guess for the sake of eulogizing the girl. It was fascinating in that both parents were in very good condition for having just lost their daughter a couple days before the interview (or less, depending on when they taped the segment). Astonishingly good condition. Having no children myself, I can't say for sure what it's like, but I have lost other family members, friends, co-workers, people I didn't know much but went to church with, and I know I could NOT have interviewed with a reporter about the dead person a day or two after and not fall into frequent weeping spells. And I'm not particularly soft-hearted, but the sudden death of someone you know, and your own child, no less, is a shock to any normal human.

So, here's the alleged parents with utterly clear eyes, no evidence of having cried once in the past week, talking about how wonderful their daughter was. At least the "father" attempted to look downcast. Not the "mom," though. She was positively perky.

What gives, I wonder? Did they hire actors just to get a segment taped right after the event so they wouldn't have to come back a year later to do it when the parents would be more composed? Or was there really a 9-year old girl killed that day, at all? Maybe there was, but she sure wasn't the beloved daughter of the couple on Nightly News. So who were these people? How does this little deception fit into the grand scheme of political control, I wonder?

Anonymous @ 4:17PM:"Do they even hear what they are saying? How do these people sleep at night?!"I hope they sleep quite soundly. It will make them so much easier to deal with when the opportunity finally arises...

Excellent points. We can't be peace-givers and peace-takers in the same breath. Lots of misconceptions will take root with this case, as they will be artfully twisted into self-serving points of view by groups and groupees of one stripe or another (the State is God, God is the State, guns are evil and so forth). If one watches the video of Loughner and wonders about the strange music (Drowning Pool "Bodies"), it's a troop favorite. There might be a lesson there, too. A state cannot argue for civility when its own example is violence.

I read somewhere recently that in the 20th Century the number of Mundanes murdered by other Mundanes was estimated to be about 8.5 million, whereas the number of Mundanes murdered by the State in the form of two world wars, innumerable small wars, police actions (like Korea,) genocides, pogroms, and purges, was well over 100 million, and perhaps as high as 200 million: 15 million in WWI, 50-60 million in WWII, 1.5 million in Korea, 2 million in Vietnam, 10 million Ukranians starved by Stalin, 20 million Chinese starved by Mao, 1.5 million killed by Pol Pot, 1.5 million in Rwanda, 3-6 million Jews, 1.5 million Armenians, 1 million in Nigeria, 2.5 million in Congo, 1.5 million in Sudan and Ethiopia, etc. etc. etc.

The State is far, far more deadly than individual crazies, criminals and crooks.

As usual, an excellent article Will. This case does indeed stink. Others have noted about the lack of security at the event but I have yet to hear anyone note the lack of media at the Safeway. When does a congress critter do a meet and greet with their mundanes and not insist there be a local news crew there to cover it? Having no video of the shooting makes it easier to tell whatever story they want.

'The crime committed in Tucson is covered by Arizona's state laws, of course, and the victims -- including all four who were murdered, not merely the federal judge and congressional aide -- were all residents of the state. But in death, as in life, those on the federal payroll are to be regarded as consecrated beings.'

Will Grigg is the ONLY commentator I've seen raise this subject, though his point rests directly on Amendment V of the Bill of Rights ('nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb') and the Fourteenth 'equal protection' Amendment.

Yet, as in the OKC bombing, there's a parallel system of justice for federal employees; a 'separate but equal' one for the Mundanes; and for the defendant, double jeopardy in open violation of Amendment V (two capital murder trials, either of which could sentence him to death).

Arguing against double jeopardy has nothing to do with guilt or innocence. If the evidence against Loughner is as overwhelming as it's described to be, then one state murder trial should be more than sufficient to sort him out.

The feds horning in and taking over the show in their Leviathan justice palace in Phoenix represents a flat-out usurpation. Copies of the Constitution serve as disposable floor mats in the hulking full-body scanners at the entrance. Hands against the wall, worm!

Anon 8:16, you bring up some solid points. I think, upon further reflection, that federal meddling in this case has less to do with retribution against a Mundane who dared assault a Sanctified Agent of the State than with grabbing even more extra-Constitutional power over a state's machinery of self-government, in this case a state that has made more moves than many others toward reasserting its rights under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Look for additional suspicious attacks against federal "assets" to occur in the near future in states like Idaho, Montana, and others in this region that are actively resisting federal encroachment, and watch as the feds further overstep their authority.

If I were Governer Jan "Walking Blonde Joke" Brewer and Terry Goddard (Arizona's Attorney General), I would be screaming at Washington to BACK OFF and pressuring Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik ("Dopenik" as some of us here have dubbed him) to withhold any and ALL cooperation with the FBI until they can prove that there is some Constitutional basis for federal intervention in this matter (if anyone were to read that "g**d*** piece of paper," they would recognize that the mere fact that Congresscreature Giffords and Judge Roll were federal officeholders DOES NOT provide such a basis).

Mao actually murdered over 100-110 million Chinese, 38.6 million by starvation from 1958-1961.The Soviet death toll for their 71 years was between 60 and 70 million. Not counting WW2.Five million at least have murdered in the Congo in the last few years.Pol Pot killed closer to three million.The Armenian death toll was probably more like 300,000.The Korean and Vietnamese figuresgiven above are probably understated.The WW2 figure is probably overstated because the Sovietsexaggerated their toll by a factorof three, probably 10 million deadinstead of the usual "27 million" lie.Will's column is great.

It's quite possible this violent crime was power-staged, as several posters have already noted.

But - just as a supposition - the intended targets should not necessarily be assumed to be gun owners, tea partiers, anti-state regulars, and such but, in fact, members of Congress per se! After all, our legislators haven't had a good scare since the anthrax mailings, which led pronto to the passage of the Patridiot Act...and, really, shouldn't all those newly-elected 'nobodies' (read 'non-incumbants') chattering about 'freedom' and the Constitution, states' rights, the Fed, etc. get their priorities straightened out asap?

I found the Sheriff's instantly-available rhetoric regarding "hate" and "division" amazingly convenient, almost as if he were on call to deliver the canned cornpone. This, of course, is the same Sheriff who'd interviewed the alleged shooter and had other dealings with him previously, knew of his aberrant focus on the Congresswomen, etc., etc.

And what better state from which to deliver the message than Arizona, which has been so troublesome to the Feds of late?

More thoughts:James Brady, Ronald Reagan's press secretary, was shot in the head, and brain-damaged, only to survive as an apparent semi-vegetable and emerge as that decade's most prominent "poster child" for gun control, thanks to his wife. Giffords is married to a NASA employee. Hmmmm....A significant number of government employees appear to be panicked by a revelation inspired by this event that they could actually be shot for merely being tax-feeders. While that may be a rational reaction on their part, it may also fall under the category of "useful information".Is the office of county sheriff in Arizona the earthly Grand Prize for Asshats? I only ask because, if given a choice of being subject to the whims of either (right-winger)Joe Arapaio or (left-winger) Clarence Dupnik, I think that the clear winner is a self-inflicted bullet wound to the temple.

Is the office of county sheriff in Arizona the earthly Grand Prize for Asshats?

That's putting it much too politely. The SOLE exception to that rule, and very significant one at that, is Sheriff Richard Mack of Graham County (southeastern Arizona, Safford being the county seat), who is one of the precious few sheriffs anywhere in the nation who is aware of his proper constitutional role. The other 13 Arizona county sheriffs aren't fit to lick mud and dog excrement off of his (or anyone else's) shoe soles.

I only ask because, if given a choice of being subject to the whims of either (right-winger)Joe Arapaio or (left-winger) Clarence Dupnik, I think that the clear winner is a self-inflicted bullet wound to the temple.

For the average Arizonan, such a self-inflicted "wound" would do no damage. Maybe that's why Congresscreature Giffords' recovery is progressing better than anyone expected.

What did ya think of that pep rally the other night at the church of Barack the Redeemer? Those shirts will make great asswipes or car waxers and the glow off the halo of the one® was too bright on the tee vee.

The gunman in Arizona is obviously mentally ill and was not thinking about legality of his actions - or thinking about anyone's innocence or guilt. His killing of a nine year old child makes this obvious. People on either side who try to ascribe his actions to fit in with their political agenda fail. It was not a political act; it was one of mental illness. But I agree: it is equally tragic (and illegal) whether those killed held elected office or were private citizens.

Killing is the world's lowest form of problem resolution, whether used by individuals, governments or cults; whether it is for personal, societal or political problems. For the President to encourage a higher level of discourse is part of his job. Thank goodness he sees it that way. I am against war/war crimes/war justification of killing so I never condoned our pre-emptive attacks on Iraq and the ongoing conflict there. I regret that we and other peoples are still fighting anywhere in the world. But by your reasoning, it's hypocritical to even hope that negotiation and diplomacy would be encouraged once killing has taken place. I would disagree. We have to always hope for and aspire to taking the higher road, even if it is not always the one taken. I read a quote recently that said, "...life is full of ambiguity and people are deeply flawed." It's true ... but we continue to set standards, goals and love each other at least as much as we fail to do so. Pointing fingers may make us feel better but it's not constructive. The President was right to encourage us to all reach higher.

The smarties in government use any occasion to curtail civil liberties which in turn increases their power relatively. They do not care about anything else and as they are "law makers", that is what they do.

It amuses me when some criminal is charged with "wire fraud". Whay is there no "street fraud" for the bank robber using the streets for his crime or may be air fraud for breathing the same air as the "holy" government official?

The souls of North Carolina legislators who conditionally ratified the document creating our central government appreciate your work. Condition 3:

"That Government ought to be instituted for the common benefit, protection and security of the people; and that the doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish, and destructive to the good and happiness of mankind."

FYI: Some good slavish pictures here. I like the one at the end captioned "awkward."